(SD=7.70, n=70). This value was 15.31 points lower than the reported national mean for
college seniors (Kuh, Hayek, Carini, Ouimet, Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001).
Class B
For Class B (N=100, n=72), students' total cognitive style mean score (M=92.43,
SD=15.05, n=46) was 2.57 points more adaptive than the general population (Kirton,
1999). The total stress mean for student in Class B was 55.85 (SD=12.95, n=68). This
score was 14.24 points lower, or one standard deviation lower than the norm (Gadzella &
Baloglu, 2001). Of total student motivation of Class B, the mean was 30.65 (SD=12.95,
n=68), only 0.19 point higher than test sample from the work of Pintrich et al. (1991).
Class B total student engagement mean was 17.73 points lower (M=46.01, SD=7.47,
n=70) than the national mean for college seniors (Kuh et al., 2001).
Class C
For Class C (N=90, n=71), the total cognitive style mean was slightly more
innovative (M=100.86, SD=14.34), or 5.86 points higher than the general population
mean defined by Kirton (1999). Total stress mean of participants in this class was 15.18
points lower (M=54.91, SD=12.59, n=70) than the reported test sample mean (Gadzella
& Baloglu, 2001). Total motivation in this course was had a mean 0.40 points higher
(M=30.86, SD=3.80, n=71) than the standardized norm (Pintrich et al., 1991). Total
student engagement score mean of Class C (M=54.73, SD=9.15, n=71) was 9.01 points
lower than the national mean for college seniors (Kuh et al., 2001).
Class D
For Class D (N=116, n=108), the total cognitive style mean for Class D student
respondents was 93.63 (SD=17.40, n=73). This indicated students in the class were
slightly more adaptive as the mean was 1.37 points more adaptive than the standard mean